Beaufort-Jasper Water & Sewer Authority has not taken a position on Reed’s plans. But the authority’s spokesman said the mining activities would not reach the Upper Floridan Aquifer.

Lynes was among a dozen local residents who signed a letter of concern to DHEC in July, asking for a public hearing, which DHEC granted. Others filed individual letters.

The residents said they were worried the project would create noise and threaten their water supply if it affected the groundwater. They also said the leftover canyons might not hold water and pointed to nearby Kingfisher Lake, which is “very low and unusable.”

Quinn Saleeby had also signed the letter in July, but Thursday said she had come to terms with the project.

“There’s always a concern when you don’t know,” she said, adding she’s hopeful the mining will be far enough away that it won’t be noticeable.

“Growth is not a bad thing, and you always want your community to be growing and changing,” said Saleeby, who said she moved to Hardeeville from Bluffton about seven years ago.

John Reed, CEO of Bluffton-based Reed Development, wanted to build a housing development around a man-made lake five years ago. But when the housing market collapsed in 2008, those plans were shelved when put on hold. His newly granted permit authorizes mine operators to extract sand by digging three pits as deep as 30 feet.

The developer’s website lists Hampton Lake, Hampton Hall, Belfair, Colleton River and Berkeley Hall as Reed Development properties. Reed intends for the pits to fill with water and serve as a recreational area for a future housing development.

The project would affect nearly 90 acres of the 1,130 acres the developer owns at the location. The site is 6 miles southeast of Hardeeville and east of U.S. 17, about one mile from the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge. A wetlands system frames the site to the north and south.

DHEC’s Nov. 28 summary for residents tried to address the objections people had raised after Reed’s initial application in May.

As for water supply worries, the nearest domestic well is located 600 feet from the site, said the agency. A condition of the permit, according to DHEC’s November summary, requires the mine operator to fix well problems and supply temporary water to the owner in the meantime, if the mining dries up any neighborhood well.

DHEC’s summary also emphasized that Reed’s mining won’t involve any chemicals, nor increase coliform bacteria counts in surface water drainages. Also, the mine operator must come up with a way to minimize how much fuel and lubricants are spilled during the storage and maintenance of equipment.

DHEC also said the operator must get rid of petroleum-tainted materials in order to protect groundwater and surface water from contamination.

The agency’s decision may not be last word on the sand mine.

Challengers have 15 days after the notice of the decision has been mailed to request a hearing before the DHEC board. The board would then vote on whether to grant the request and hold a courtroom-style hearing.

But at least one interested party, the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, will not be requesting a hearing.

In September, the environmental group warned state regulators about what could happen if 56 million cubic feet of sand were removed from below the water table, which is 8 feet below the surface at the site. Changes to the groundwater could “severely alter” wetlands on nearby properties and within the refuge, said the organization.

Reed Armstrong, project manager for the League’s South Coast office, said most appeals continue on to the Administrative Law Court or higher, which requires time and money.

“Basically, we have to pick our fights,” he said Tuesday.

But Armstrong expressed disappointment that the agency’s November summary did not address his questions about the prospect of a draw-down of the water table and potential for changes to the nearby wetlands.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had also been apprehension about the mining proposal.

In October, DHEC received a letter from the federal agency that said it didn’t oppose the developer’s plans but had “concerns regarding potential adverse impacts to the (refuge) resulting from discharges associated with dewatering of the proposed mine.”

Jane Griess, project leader of the Savannah Coastal Refuges, said officials would be monitoring the wetlands but that she felt “cautiously optimistic,” after meeting with the developer.

The refuge is part of the system under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Savannah National Wildlife Refuge covers about 29,000 acres across Chatham and Effingham counties in Georgia and Jasper County.